Land Use Law Commons^™

“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines

Seattle University Law Review

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has long been controversial. It allows the government to take private property for the purpose of “public use.” But what does public use mean? The definition is one of judicial interpretation. It has evolved from the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Now, the meaning is extremely broad. This Note argues that both the original and contemporary meaning of public use are problematic. It explores the issues with both definitions and suggests a new test, solidified in legislation instead of judicial interpretation.

Takings Liability And Coastal Management In Massachusetts, Melissa Chalek

Marine Affairs Institute Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

Irresponsible Legislating: Reeling In The Aftermath Of Kelo, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court’S 2004 Term Includes Significant Land Use Decisions With A Trilogy Of Takings Cases, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

Community Redevelopment, Public Use, And Eminent Domain, Patricia E. Salkin, Lora A. Lucero

Patricia E. Salkin

Published just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down their controversial decision on Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, this article, in correctly predicting the outcome of the Supreme Court opinion, explores in Section I how the concept of what constitutes a public use has evolved over the decades from traditionally accepted uses such as public roads, buildings (e.g., government buildings and schools), and utilities to urban redevelopment. It explains how the broad concepts of community redevelopment have been stretched to encompass needed economic development projects that promise jobs, tax revenue, and other public benefits similar to …

Law Casebook Description And Table Of Contents: Constitutional Environmental And Natural Resources Law [Outline], Jim May, Robin Craig

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

6 pages.

"James May, Widener University School of Law" -- Agenda

The "Public Use" Requirement In Eminent Domain Law: A Rationale Based On Secret Purchases And Private Influence, Daniel B. Kelly

ExpressO

This article provides a rationale for understanding and interpreting the “public use” requirement within eminent domain law. The rationale is based on two factors. First, while the government often needs the power of eminent domain to avoid the problem of strategic holdout, private parties are usually able to purchase property through secret buying agents. The availability of these buying agents makes the use of eminent domain for private parties unnecessary (and indeed, undesirable). The government, however, is ordinarily unable to make secret purchases because its plans are subject to democratic deliberation and known in advance. Second, while the use of …

U.S. Supreme Court’S 2004 Term Includes Significant Land Use Decisions With A Trilogy Of Takings Cases, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Community Redevelopment, Public Use, And Eminent Domain, Patricia E. Salkin, Lora A. Lucero

Scholarly Works

Published just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down their controversial decision on Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, this article, in correctly predicting the outcome of the Supreme Court opinion, explores in Section I how the concept of what constitutes a public use has evolved over the decades from traditionally accepted uses such as public roads, buildings (e.g., government buildings and schools), and utilities to urban redevelopment. It explains how the broad concepts of community redevelopment have been stretched to encompass needed economic development projects that promise jobs, tax revenue, and other public benefits similar to …

Irresponsible Legislating: Reeling In The Aftermath Of Kelo, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

"Public Use" And The Independent Judiciary: Condemnation In An Interest-Group Perspective, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

This Article reexamines the doctrine of public use under the Takings Clause and its ability to impede takings for private use through an application of public choice theory. It argues that the judicial validation of interest-group capture of the condemnation power through a relaxed public use standard in Takings Clause review can be explained by interest group politics and public choice theory and by institutional tendencies inherent in the independent judiciary. Legislators can sell the eminent domain power to special interests for almost any use, promising durability in the deal given the low probability that the judiciary will invalidate it …